Talk tomorrow in Portland, OFF vs. Ceasefire Oregon

Soccer Fan

Is anyone else going to this? The City Club of Portland has "Friday Forums" on Fridays where they invite various folks to come and give talks, answer questions about their topic, etc. Should be interesting.

Active Member

Member

didnt know you needed to buy tickets? $30 ahh no thanks. Not sure how many spots will be available for general seating?

"Reservations required for lunches only; reservations close at 2 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the event. General seating and coffee/tea table tickets will be available at the door. To reserve a lunch via telephone, individuals (members and nonmembers) should call our voice mail reservation line, 503-228-7231, ext. 110. A limited number of lunch tickets are generally available at the door. Reservations for lunch are strongly encouraged. Tickets for coffee and tea and general seating are on a first-come, first-served basis. Luncheon tickets reserved after the 2:00 PM Wednesday deadline will be subject to an additional $5 charge and depend upon availability."

Well-Known Member

In one corner: Penny Okamoto, Ceasefire Oregon
In the other corner: Kevin Starrett, Oregon Firearms Federation

My impressions and comments:

Penny's comment was that the "gun lobby" was "in it for the money" made from "loss of innocent lives". The sense I got from the audience is that they understood that this was not true, that the gun lobby has ideological differences from the gun grabbers, and that neither side is pleased with the loss of innocent lives. Ineffective on her part.

Kevin Starrett is a pretty good speaker, calm, factual, and addresses the current point being discussed. Unfortunately, no effective use of emotion or outrage against unreasonable gun laws.

Penny was indignant and emotional in some cases -- and it was effective (exception above). She was generally effective in conveying the emotion that her side was "for the children" and "against senseless violence".

Kevin Starrett made a significant blunder when he was addressing concealed carry in schools. He was telling a story about the Sandy Hook shooting, trying to point out the absurdity of prohibiting the teachers from being able to defend themselves. He basically said that the teacher who was trying to protect students and herself probably did not think "I sure am glad I don't have a gun" -- right before she was shot. Penny jumped on this and was (artificially) indignant that Kevin would "mock" that teacher.

A more effective way to do this (Kevin, are you listening?) would be for Kevin to tell the same story, but the ending should be more like "Why does Ceasefire feel the need to prevent teachers from protecting themselves and their students from attacks such as this? Why, Ceasefire, do you insist that these teachers and students be powerless victims?" -- In other words, be indignant and turn the opposition into the "bad guys" while feeling emotion for the victims.

The crowd clapped louder and more for Penny than for Kevin (as expected, this is Portland after all). The questions from the audience were incomprehensible in some cases.

Overall, Kevin and Penny both did a good job for their respective sides, neither probably convinced "true believers" on either side of the debate to change their minds.

Active Member

In one corner: Penny Okamoto, Ceasefire Oregon
In the other corner: Kevin Starrett, Oregon Firearms Federation

My impressions and comments:

Penny's comment was that the "gun lobby" was "in it for the money" made from "loss of innocent lives". The sense I got from the audience is that they understood that this was not true, that the gun lobby has ideological differences from the gun grabbers, and that neither side is pleased with the loss of innocent lives. Ineffective on her part.

Kevin Starrett is a pretty good speaker, calm, factual, and addresses the current point being discussed. Unfortunately, no effective use of emotion or outrage against unreasonable gun laws.

Penny was indignant and emotional in some cases -- and it was effective (exception above). She was generally effective in conveying the emotion that her side was "for the children" and "against senseless violence".

Kevin Starrett made a significant blunder when he was addressing concealed carry in schools. He was telling a story about the Sandy Hook shooting, trying to point out the absurdity of prohibiting the teachers from being able to defend themselves. He basically said that the teacher who was trying to protect students and herself probably did not think "I sure am glad I don't have a gun" -- right before she was shot. Penny jumped on this and was (artificially) indignant that Kevin would "mock" that teacher.

A more effective way to do this (Kevin, are you listening?) would be for Kevin to tell the same story, but the ending should be more like "Why does Ceasefire feel the need to prevent teachers from protecting themselves and their students from attacks such as this? Why, Ceasefire, do you insist that these teachers and students be powerless victims?" -- In other words, be indignant and turn the opposition into the "bad guys" while feeling emotion for the victims.

The crowd clapped louder and more for Penny than for Kevin (as expected, this is Portland after all). The questions from the audience were incomprehensible in some cases.

Overall, Kevin and Penny both did a good job for their respective sides, neither probably convinced "true believers" on either side of the debate to change their minds.

Click to expand...

Wow that sucks I was expecting OFF to totally wipe the floor with them especially after that video that was posted where he made that anti gun guy get all pissed off and walk out

Soccer Fan

pchewn: I agree completely with your assessment. I heard Kevin start to say what he said and started to cringe, knowing it wasn't going to be good. Then I heard gasps and mumblings from the audience, "that's insulting", "that's inappropriate", etc.... Thankfully that was the only time Kevin did anything like that.

It was interesting to watch Penny, you could see a few times where she would start to seeth with anger and frustration, then get herself under control and continue on. An interesting dynamic for sure.

For those who are interested, you'll be able to hear it play tonight at 1900 hours on OPB. Here's a link to radio station listings and the online streaming feed:

Soccer Fan

One other thing... Kevin Starrett argued against background checks because of chronic problems with people being wrongly denied and the delays associated some have experienced when the computer malfunctions. Penny Okamoto implied that the system was reliable and that those concerns were invalid.

After the talk I went to my local gun shop to complete a purchase on a firearm I put on layaway last month. I wasn't able to walk out with it though, apparently the OSP computers are down today. They'll call me when the computers are back up and they've made it through the backlog :thumbdown::banghead:

Member

After the talk I went to my local gun shop to complete a purchase on a firearm I put on layaway last month. I wasn't able to walk out with it though, apparently the OSP computers are down today. They'll call me when the computers are back up and they've made it through the backlog :thumbdown::banghead:

Click to expand...

I was in the lgs today as well, and was told it was down all day. The tech guys didn't know what the problem was from what I was told. I am curious if there was a shut down in Washington as well? Seems like they could be hacked if it is a online system. Or it could be a strategic shutdown. Lots of possibilities beyond equipment failure.

Well-Known Member

Member

Caught part of it on the radio. Was the the inspection provision of HB 3200 brought up?

Click to expand...

No, no mention of that part from either side. Penny sounded like a broke record saying the same thing with flawed facts, and not backing up any statistical evidence that she mentioned. In fact she got nasty at one point saying "how dare you bring up a dead teacher" when Keven brought up the fact that the last thing she thought was probably not " I am glad I don't have a gun." He was not making light of the situation.

Well-Known Member

No, no mention of that part from either side. Penny sounded like a broke record saying the same thing with flawed facts, and not backing up any statistical evidence that she mentioned. In fact she got nasty at one point saying "how dare you bring up a dead teacher" when Keven brought up the fact that the last thing she thought was probably not " I am glad I don't have a gun." He was not making light of the situation.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I heard the part about the teacher and thought he should have presented it differently.

I wish I would have counted the number of times she referred to the gun lobby and profits at the expense of lives of some sort.

Well-Known Member2016 Volunteer

Kevin Starrett made a significant blunder when he was addressing concealed carry in schools. He was telling a story about the Sandy Hook shooting, trying to point out the absurdity of prohibiting the teachers from being able to defend themselves. He basically said that the teacher who was trying to protect students and herself probably did not think "I sure am glad I don't have a gun" -- right before she was shot. Penny jumped on this and was (artificially) indignant that Kevin would "mock" that teacher.

Click to expand...

Kevin was right. If that teacher had had a gun, she'd probably still be alive as well as many of the kids. Most likely she wouldn't have had one even given the opportunity, and that's fine, but I bet she'd have one now (if she had survived).

People act all outraged at disrespecting the dead, but you know what? The dead don't care, and everybody knows that she wasn't thinking, "good thing I don't have a gun." She was probably thinking, "I wish I had a gun." People need to suck it up and acknowledge the truth, even when it hurts.

Active Member

I absolutely agree with Ralgha. Kevin's comments may have made some people there uncomfortable, but our very existence as firearms owners make them uncomfortable.

In fact I think we should be using this as a major talking point. We will get nowhere by giving any credence to their political correctness. These people need to be taken outside their comfort zone so they are forced to consider new concepts and ideas even if their heads explode from internal pressure in the process.

These people want us to feel guilty and put on sack cloth due to some PC association with crimes of violence. They need to be put in the position of accepting real guilt for guaranteeing victims' deaths. They need to understand that the teacher and children are twice victims--once by the violent individual and second by the system that guarantees they will be successfully victimized. Firearms owners are not associated with the violent individuals, but these people ARE directly associated with ensured victimhood through their support of restrictions on firearms owners. They need to be constantly reminded that they are more than willing to sacrifice innocents for their bigotry.

I am tired of hearing "Why won't you give up firearms if it will save just one life?" and want to ask "Why do you insist on preventing firearms ownership if it will save just one life?".

It really galls that we are supposed to lay low out of respect for victims of firearms violence while not one single automobile owner is expected to show the same respect for the thousands of traffic victims, huge mass pileups or even in instances of intentional vehicle violence like the Honda CRV driver hunting down pedestrians in San Francisco's Union Square a few years back, another motorist intentionally hunting down bicyclists in the same city, yet another who likely tried to run down bicyclists (per a video of the event) in Berkeley and recent incidents of accidentally or intentionaliy driving an automobile into crowds.

Well-Known Member

Typical of the anti crowd. They want to bring in the victims - children and teachers - as emotional ploys to win the argument. Yet, any attempt by us to portray a potential alternate outcome for those victims by asking if they could have been more empowered to defend themselves, is considered to be an insult, or an attack against those who tried their best given the tools that were legally available to them - i.e. none at all.

Well-Known Member

It's how to frame and present the question is key. I've been struggling with this the last couple of days myself. We can present facts and figures that are correct, and point out flaws in theres. But what people on that side of the spectrum really hear and process are the 'emotions'. Before you dismiss that, realize that is the language they hear and speak. And as some of the others have said above, to turn the debate back on them, to stop being on the defense and get them off of the infatuation with the hating "gun" binge, get them thinking about solutions that will really make a difference. And if they don't, why don't they care enough....

Well-Known Member

Kevin was right. If that teacher had had a gun, she'd probably still be alive as well as many of the kids. Most likely she wouldn't have had one even given the opportunity, and that's fine, but I bet she'd have one now (if she had survived).

Click to expand...

Being right and being effective are two different things. Kevin was right, your facts and logic are right. However, the EMOTION in the message (the way it was said) turns off a significant portion of the people we are trying to convince. The message can be delivered in a more effective manner (the emotion part of the message) and still be factually and logically correct.

WELCOME!

Northwest Firearms provides a place for gun owners of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho a place to converse,
organize, learn, educate, trade, and most importantly, work together to preserve our Second Amendment rights.

Participation is completely free and registration takes only a few moments.

About Northwest Firearms

We believe the 2nd Amendment is best defended through grass-roots organization, education, and advocacy centered around individual gun owners. It is our mission to encourage, organize, and support these efforts throughout Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.